The Structure of Visual Space Group

The goal of the multidisciplinary Structure of Visual Space Group is to focus on the structural nature of visual space and how it is "constructed," its relation with "external" physical space, correlated brain events, and to corollary theories in modern physics and cosmology.
Anyone wishing to post material on the blog is invited to contact either William Rosar (wrosar@ucsd.edu) or John Smythies (jsmythies@ucsd.edu) of the Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

It is interesting that Vedanta has
many concepts in common with the Material Dualism of Smythies. For example,
Vedanta rejects the identity of mind and brain. The subtlest aspects of the
mind, the accumulated latent impressions of all past experiences
and desires called vasanas or samskaras are said to survive the
death of the physical body and carried by jiva (the soul) who also
survives death (because of being a spark of the immortal Consciousness)
and enters them into another physical body for fulfillment of desires.
The new life gives vasanas another chance for expression. To use the
computer analogy, this principle of reincarnation is analogous to the following
scenario: when the hardware of a computer is broken, the computer operator can
load the same software that was in the broken computer into another computer
and can run it again if the software was copied and stored on a storage
device. (No copying is necessary in the case of vasanas because
they have independent existence from the moment they are created unlike the
computer software which is a mapping of some "real information" which
exists in the programmer's head to the hardware elements of the computer
memory.) Anyway, the point is that according to Vedanta, the contents of
the mind (in other words, phenomenal information (PI)) are subtle and consist
of a different kind of matter other than ordinary matter and they interact with
the neural matter in the brain during life. Smythies does not go as far as
reincarnation but he has suggested many times the possibility of a substance
dualism in which phenomenal information (a person’s ‘consciousness module’)
and its brain are two ontologically independent parts of a human organism
located in different but related spaces (in two of the parallel universes of
brane theory), and connected by causal relations (mechanism). In fact, Smythies
suggested the following in Cosmology 2014; 18:
110-118: "physical space-time (4D) and phenomenal space (3
spatial dimensions) plus 1 dimension of real time—t2, are cross-sections of a
common higher dimensional space that are in relative motion in t2 along the
time axis of the block universe. This movement generates the ‘now’ and the
passage of the time that we experience. The contents of phenomenal space are
our sensations, images and thoughts all causally related to (but not identical
with) particular brain events. " This
proposal can be regarded as being consistent with Vedanta in view of the
following theoretical developments.

In Indian philosophical literature thought is often
described as being very fast and one that never comes to stop. Properties of
thought described in this literature are very similar to those of
faster-than-light objects, known as tachyons in modern physics. It will be
possible to describe mental processes and interaction of mind with ordinary
matter, in the terminology of mathematics and physics and quantum mechanics in
particular, if one assumes that PI consists of superluminal matter.

Interestingly, it can be shown
that in the Beck and Eccles (1992) quantum mechanical model of exocytosis, a
zero energy tachyon (ZET) can precisely do the task of an Eccles’s psychon,
that is, interact with boutons and increase the probability of the exocytosis
in all the boutons of a whole dendron simultaneously thus coupling a large
number of quantum amplitudes to produce coherent action but without violating
energy conservation (Hari 2008).

Again, assuming mind-brain interaction as tachyon
interaction with a nonrelativistic quantum brain, it can be shown that
subjective experience is created in the form of tachyons if the mind consisting
of tachyons pays attention to the brain (Hari 2014).

Libet’s delay-and-antedating temporal anomaly can be
explained using the tachyon-matter interaction model of mind-brain
interaction. Using the same model, it can be explained why an unconscious
development of ‘readiness potential’ (RP) occurs prior to the awareness of the
intention to act a freely voluntary act, and why on the other hand, one can
consciously veto the act until actually beginning to do it even after being
aware of one’s own intention to act (Hari 2014).

Coming back to Smythies proposal: During the 1970’s
and later, tachyon physicists discussed six-dimensional special relativity
(6D-SR) with equal number of space and time dimensions, as they found it more
suitable for the description of tachyons than the conventional 4D-SR. In
6D-SR, events accessible (by exchange of energy, momentum etc.) to a subluminal
object and those accessible to a superluminal object are located on two
different 4D-Minkowski-spacetimes in the 6D-spacetime (Pavsic 1981). If one
assumes that the PI module of a sentient observer consists of tachyons then the
observer’s brain and mind play the roles respectively of a subluminal and a
superluminal agent, whenever he/she observes an external material object or an
internal thought, emotion, etc. The 6D-SR then implies that the spacetime of
the physical world and the spacetime of PI of the individual are located on
different 4D-Minkowski sheets embedded in the 6D-spacetime.

The tachyon theory of mind (TOM) explains the ‘now’ of an
observation as follows:Consider an event BP in the brain S of observer
O corresponding to a ‘conscious’ event P. BP is the event of a collapse of the
wavefunction of S if we assume S to be a quantum system. According to TOM,
awareness occurs because BP produces ZETs that describe the collapse. In the
frame F in which S is at rest the coordinates of BP can be written in the
form: BP(F) : (tb, 0, 0, x1, x2, x3), where the first three are the time
coordinates and the last three are the space coordinates. The latter can be taken
to be (0,0,0) because when one monitors the formation of a neural map, the
completed neural map occupies the same place as where there is no such map
earlier. The time tb is the time taken to build the map as measured by the
monitoring neuroscientist. In the superluminal frame F’ in which the ZETs (in
the mind S’ of O) are at rest, coordinates of BP are given by a coordinate
transformation K called the transcendent superluminal transformation which
switches space coordinates to time coordinates and vice versa. Hence in the
frame F', the coordinates of BP are: K(BP) = BP(F') : (t'~(0, 0, 0), x'= (tb,
0, 0)). Thus, observer O reports the event as happening at time t'~ (0,
0, 0), i.e., as happening ‘now’. This conclusion therefore agrees with
Smythies's view that the experienced ‘now’ of time in a block Universe is where
consciousness, or the experiencing subject is, not where his or her physical
body and brain are.

Obviously, the 6D-SR of TOM differs
from the Smythies proposal by having one more time dimension in the higher
dimensional space. I am not sure at this point whether just two time
dimensions are enough to describe the physical and phenomenal worlds. For
example, it is not possible to associate space and time in the block universe,
to our dreams some of which we may be able to report to others because an
event in a dream or any other event of pure imagination may not have happened
and may never happen in the physical world. When we are aware of them,
something happens 'now' in the second time dimension; when they are in the
memory, it is not clear what time we can ascribe to them.

Friday, November 27, 2015

In the last post we asked “If the mind is not conscious, how is it that we have conscious experiences
in our lives?” The answer is that “appearance of consciousness”
(called Chidabhasa in Sanskrit) happens because of the underlying Consciousness
which produces a reflection in the mind, the memory of the living being.

Vedanta explains “appearance of consciousness”
by means of the
following analogy: When sun light falls in a pot containing water, the light is
reflected by the water creating an image of the sun. The image has some
brightness but its origin is in the sun light and not in the pot nor in the
water. If the pot is broken, water is scattered, the reflection is gone but the
sun and his rays are all still there. In this analogy, a living being is a body
with a mind and similar to a pot containing water; the mind is like water and
the body is like the pot. The consciousness appearing in a living being is like
the image of the sun in water. If there is more than one pot with water, images
of the sun appear in all the different pots.The
Supreme knower, Consciousness, who
manifests Himself as consciousness of each individual living being is like the sun light; there are no
distinctions in sun light, it is all one but the reflections are many and
distinct. The quality of reflection varies with the quality of water, for
example, if the water moves the reflection shakes; if the water is muddy then
the reflection is not as bright. Just as there is no reflection in an empty
pot, there is no appearance of consciousness in lifeless matter but only in
living beings because they have minds. Again, just as the water needs a pot to
hold it, and the reflection is gone if the pot is broken, the mind cannot
exhibit the apparently conscious behavior after the death of the physical body.

Chidabhasa -appearance of consciousness (in living beings because they have both body and mind unlike lifeless matter where there is no interaction of the body with a mind)

We will add some more detail to how Vedanta answers the "hard problem of consciousness" in later posts. For example, we will talk about how PI (although not conscious by itself) is created by the brain.

Happy Thanksgiving weekend every one! I want to
thank Bill Rosar for giving me opportunity to participate in the discussions on
this blog. I found references to Hindu philosophy and computers (in
particular to chess playing programs and calculators) in some posts in this
blog and found that interesting because in my articles which propose that the
"phenomenal information" (PI) in our brains consists of superluminal
matter, I use ideas from Vedanta and arguments why and how chess playing
programs and calculators are "fundamentally" different from living
beings.

To introduce myself briefly, I am
a consciousness researcher with background in mathematical physics and computer
science. As we all know, after having developed various artificial
intelligent programs and superfast computers which perform many intelligent
tasks better and faster than human beings and perhaps some of which humans are
not even able to do, some computer scientists started claiming that they are
very close to building a conscious computer. Being born as a Hindu, I
could not believe that. My philosophy tells me that not only matter is not
conscious but PI is also not conscious; while matter is perceivable by the
physical senses, PI is not directly accessible to senses and physical measuring
devices. The latter statement agrees with our experience as well as science;
how PI is created in the brain became the "hard problem" of Chalmers
because of the inaccessibility.

Brief summary of Vedanta’s characterization of
Consciousness, mind, body, and their relations:

There exists Universal
Consciousness (briefly called Consciousness with Big C in front hereafter), which is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.

Every
living being is associated with its own soul (Jiva) which is a bit
of that infinite Consciousness, who draws to itself the senses and the
mind that are part of Nature (Bhagavad Gita Chapter 15, verse 7). Being
part of the eternal Consciousness, the soul is eternal also and survives
the death of the physical body.

Nature (called Prakriti in Sanskrit) is
dumb. Although it seems to carry on many processes all by itself, it does not
"know" what it is doing and needs initiation. Consciousness
gives that initiation of its own will; it is free will. It can look into one
subject or two subjects or more subjects at the same time or look into none; It
can initiate Prakriti to do things or not initiate. Nobody can tell
Consciousness to do anything. It is above all rules and logic.

The Self (Atma) is
Consciousness seated in the hearts of all beings (Bhagavad Gita chapter
10, verse 20). Kenopanishad (Swami,
1920) says that the mind and senses are able to perform their respective
functions willed and initiated by Consciousness and without It, the senses
and the mind cannot function.

The mind is an
accumulation of thoughts or information. It consists of a memory of
experiences, desires, aversion, emotions, etc. (chitta), ability to think
(manas), intellect (buddhi) which includes the ability
to make decisions based on memory,and the sense of ‘I’ or ego (ahankara). The mind is
subtle unlike the body but it is also part of Nature, in other words, it
is not conscious but as dumb as lifeless matter.

The five elements
are the earth, water, fire, air and the space. The five senses are
hearing, touching, seeing, tasting and smelling; objects of the senses are
sound, touch, form and colour, taste and smell.

Bhagavadgita
describes the distinctions between the body mind complex and the one who
‘knows’ them (shetrajna). The Field (shetra) consists of the body, the senses and sense
objects, the body's environment (Nature), and the mind.

All
contents of the Field, namely, the body, its environment, and the mind are
part of Nature and
therefore
inert (Bhagavad Gita,
7:4).

The
knower of the Field (shetrajna) is Consciousness Himself and His
infinitesimal projection, jiva
who assumed this function within this body.

As
to the interaction of the body and the mind, in the chapter called Karma Yoga, Gita says that the
senses influence the body, and manas
and chitta influence the senses;
buddhi influences the manas and chitta, and jiva
influences buddhi, which is in its turn, influenced by jiva.

All schools of Indian philosophy emphasize the
distinction between what we usually perceive in living beings and call
consciousness, and Consciousness itself. The difference is that the
former is fragmented. An individual’s consciousness exists only in wakeful and
dreaming sleep states and knows only one thing at a time, and in general one
individual does not know the conscious experience of another whereas
Consciousness knows everything everywhere all the time.

Vedanta and computer analogyThe above descriptions of
Consciousness, mind, and body, suggest the following analogy:

A living being is similar to a
computer whose
hardware is the physical body. The body is made up of matter. The living
being has an accumulation of experiences, desires, etc. i.e., an
accumulation of information in a memory which we call the mind in this
paper. The mind is like a computer memory containing data and programs.

Just
like a computer's hardware and software do not know what they are doing,
their own existence, and the meaning of their memory contents, both the
body and the mind of a living being also do not “really know” anything but
there is a certain Consciousness (apart from the mind mentioned above)
that "knows". Consciousness is like the computer operator, as it
were, and the one who "really knows" everything that is going on
in the living being’s life.

Similar to the
computer software, the mind being an instrument, cannot act as an agent all by
itself and needs initiation from an external agent, which is often, a desire/purpose (thoughts), or sensory inputs; the soul
being a part of the omnipotent Consciousness can also intervene just like a
computer operator can intervene in the operations of the computer.Mind and body act on each other according to
Vedanta.One may ask, “If the mind is not conscious, how is it that we have conscious experiences
in our lives?” The answer is that “appearance of consciousness”
(called Chidabhasa in Sanskrit) happens because of the underlying Consciousness
which produces a reflection in the mind, the memory of the living being. The next post illustrates the answer.